In
these two consolidated appeals, Ander Lee Tyson and Melody
Lee Tyson (" the Tysons" ) ask this court to
reverse what they assert are erroneous judgments of the
Choctaw Circuit Court in two civil actions. We dismiss both
appeals for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

On
December 13, 2011, Slater Jenkins (" Slater" )
initiated an action (" the quiet-title action" ) in
the Choctaw Circuit Court. In his complaint, Slater asserted
that he and his two brothers (sometimes hereinafter referred
to collectively as " the Jenkinses" ) own, as
tenants in common, a piece of real property consisting of
eight acres in Choctaw County. According to the complaint,
Slater's parents purchased the property in 1962,
constructed a house on it shortly thereafter, and eventually
deeded it to Slater and his brothers in 2001.[1]

Page 184

Slater
further alleged that, in November 2011, he had received
correspondence from the Tysons, in which they claimed to have
recently purchased, as part of a larger tract of land, the
portion of the real property upon which the house sits
(" the property" ). The Tysons gave Slater and his
family 30 days to remove their belongings from the property
before the Tysons had the house destroyed.

Slater
requested the trial court to quiet title to the property and
to declare Slater and his brothers as its owners. He also
purported to state five other causes of action against the
Tysons -- namely, claims asserting a " bare right of
possession," " bare possession," trespass,
adverse possession, and the tort of outrage. Slater
eventually amended his complaint to add a sixth count
alleging " timber trespass." Pursuant to those
causes of action, Slater requested the trial court to restore
possession of the property to Slater and his brothers, to
permanently enjoin the Tysons from entering the property, to
establish the boundary lines of the property, and to award
Slater compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's
fees, and costs.[2]

On
January 12, 2013, the Tysons answered the complaint. On May
10, 2013, the trial court entered a consent judgment stating
that the parties had reached a settlement agreement resolving
all issues presented in the quiet-title action. The judgment
incorporated the settlement agreement, defined the boundaries
of the property at issue, and directed the Tysons to remove a
portion of a fence they had erected on the property. The
judgment was signed by the trial court and the attorneys for
all parties.

On
September 13, 2013, the Jenkinses initiated a new civil
action (" the contempt action" ) in the Choctaw
Circuit Court in which they sought to hold the Tysons in
contempt of court for allegedly violating the consent
judgment that had been entered in the quiet-title action.
Specifically, the Jenkinses alleged that the Tysons had
failed to remove the portion of the fence referenced in the
consent judgment.

On
October 28, 2013, having obtained new counsel, the Tysons
filed in the contempt action a " Motion to Set Aside
Judgment Due to Incompleteness Status," in which they
requested the trial court in the contempt action to set aside
the consent judgment that had been entered in the quiet-title
action. In support of their motion, the Tysons claimed that
it was their understanding that no final judgment was
supposed to have been entered, if at all, in the quiet-title
action " until an assessment had been made [on the
property] and [the] results disclosed." On November 22,
2013, the trial court in the contempt action entered an order
stating: " Motion for New Trial filed by [the Tysons] is
hereby Denied." It appears to this court that that order
is directed to the Tysons' motion to set aside for "
incompleteness status."

Approximately
five months later, on April 28, 2014, the Tysons filed
another motion in the contempt action. That motion was styled
as one for relief from the judgment in the quite-title
action, seeking relief under Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.
(" the Rule 60 motion" ). In the Rule 60 motion,
the Tysons asserted that, although the settlement agreement
underlying the consent judgment in the ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.